SAFIA BEGUM Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband of the petitioner was engaged as Pharmacist in the year 1991. His status as an ad hoc employee continued till February, 2003, when he died after a massive heart attack. The petitioner -wife of the deceased has sought her appointment on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994. Her contention is that she is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds as her husband died in harness. It is stated that she applied to the respondents for considering her case for being appointed on Compassionate grounds and a recommendation was also made by the Block Medical Officer and the Chief Medical Officer as well as by the Director Health Services to the authority concerned.

(2.) GRIEVANCES of the petitioner is that her case has been rejected by the Administrative Department on the ground that her husband was not a permanent employee of the State Government and, as such, she cannot claim the benefit under SRO 43. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I am fortified in my view with a judgment of this Court dated 24.3.2005 passed in case titled Sohan Lal v. State Forest Corporation and Ors. in SWP No. 1783/2003. In the aforementioned case, it has been observed that even an adhoc/temporary employee is covered by the definition of "Government employee". After expressing the said view, reliance was placed on another judgment of this Court reported as Sureksha Rani v. State of J & K : 1999 KLJ 24, wherein it was observed as under: